Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

reply to post by Pilgrum

Pilgrim, it's great that you offer us the possibility of empirical data. Could you toss in a hunk of concrete, a section of pipe, some glass, and an old motherboard into your machine and let us know how long it takes to turn each of them in turn to fine particulate, and at what rpm? Likewise for a piece of sheet steel say 3/16" thick, which would be about the thickness of that of the missing floor pans.

5/8" bolts to connect the floor trusses in the twin towers? That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen before they get done trying to lay the first steel floor joist of the second floor.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


How do you surmise much of the steel, of the twin towers, ended up becoming no larger than a grains of sand, salt, or sugar, if it fell all by itself? Even conventional controlled demolitions cannot do that. So exactly how did it happen? If venturing a supposition, please validate from where you surmised what happened. Otherwise, it will simply be your opinion and nothing more.

The twin towers were highly rundantly built skeletal steel high rises. There was very little in the way recognizable steel to show for that, when it was all over.

reply to post by gottago
My ball mill doesn't have 30 ton steel blocks in it either but the mechanism for such pulverisation was there in the collapse. Can you direct me to some evidence of how much powdered copper, silver, fibreglass, etc was found? Or is it just that some was detected in the rubble?

I'm not sure of the quantity you see and if it's a truly vast quantity then my idea does indeed seem unlikely to be able to explain it but traces are firmly within the realm of reasonability.

Actually those 2 bolts attaching each floor truss at each end are another interesting point. Virtually all sections of steel showing truss seats indicate those bolts were cleanly sheared.

reply to post by grover


Grover, you and some others appear to think thousands of people need to be directly involved in a conspiracy. A conspiracy can be as small in number as two. Conspiracies are only carried out by those directly involved. Others, indirectly involved, are kept in the dark doing only their part, no different than a guerilla army, which normally has very low numbers of operatives. Then everyone else merely working at their jobs will keep mouths shut, or high probability chance losing their jobs, plus, have lies placed in their employee folders to discredit them, or worse.

Power and wealth can do anything necessary to maintain and continue to accumulate, because they get by with it with no reprecussions. They control it all. Until the people begin to wake up and put a stop to it, it is never going to end. The wealthy and powerful never have to see a courtroom, because they control everything through bought and paid for politicians. Surely people do not believe honest elections are held and won at the highest levels of bureaucracies.

Even JFK's win was bought and paid for by his daddy and others. When he would not play politics with the lives of US citizens, it cost him his life. RFK has the same fate for the same reason. Some of the same people, directly involved in murdering the Kennedy brothers, were directly responsible, in continuing conspiracy, for 9/11.

Originally posted by philjwolf
reply to post by ANOK
[more it would be just the opposite.. the more wieght that accumalated as it fell the faster it would fall.. my 7 yr old told me that..

Perhaps, until your "7 yr old" learns more about conservation of energy when all support is not released, perhaps you best look elsewhere for science information related to quantum mechanics.

A little more info on the column welds:
Inspected visually, ultrasonicly and finally by x-ray and stated to have required up to 200 passes - I think they were as good as they were supposed to be.

4.2.5 Construction (On-Site Assembly)
During fabrication, Karl Koch Erecting Co. used a combination of bolting, shielded metal arc (SMA) welding (E7018), and gas metal arc welding (semiautomatic Fab Co 71 with CO2 shielding) to join the components (Welding Design 1970b). The E7018 low-hydrogen SMA electrode would likely have been produced to ASTM Standard A 233-64T (also published by AWS as A 5.1-64T), then AWS Standard A 5.1-69 for the later parts of the fabrication. The 3/32 in. (2.4 mm) diameter Fab Co 71 (sic, probably should be FabCO 71, a trademark of Hobart Brothers Company) was an E70T-1 flux cored arc electrode and would likely have been produced according to ASTM A 559 (withdrawn in 1969), then AWS A5.20-69. Higher-strength SMA electrodes (ASTM A 316 until 1969, then AWS A 5.5-69) were also permitted by the contract. More than 48,000 lb (22,000 kg) of electrodes were used in each of the towers (Welding Design 1970b). Koch used a combination of visual and ultrasonic inspection on the joints. They estimated that rework would cost three times as much as the original weld, so they inspected early and often to minimize any rework. One reason that rework was so expensive is that some welds took as many as 200 passes, so they wanted to catch any problems before the later passes made access more difficult.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Leaving out WTC7 because it was an entirely different building type hence an entirely different collapse mechanism:

Then perhaps you would care to scientifically explain why WTC 7 took relatively longer to collapse, and made a much larger more recognizable mess, than either WTC 1 or 2. Yet, it was less than half the size of either WTC 1 or 2.

There was no pyroclastic blast coming from WTC 7. It like any ordinary collapse using legal conventional controlled demolitions.

From what I finally viewed of the aftermath of WTC 7, there was much more intact steel, granite and other constuction material, plus, interior sections, than existed at almost completely disintegrated WTC 1 or 2.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


So "abrasive concrete" turns steel in molecular granules from whence it never came, will it? I can guarantee steel will turn concrete into molecular granules from whence it came, and never will "abrasive concrete" do that to steel. Although, concrete can clean the rust flaking off steel. However, that is not the same as turning steel into molecular granules, no larger than the molecular granules of sugar, sand, or salt.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by gottago

Actually those 2 bolts attaching each floor truss at each end are another interesting point. Virtually all sections of steel showing truss seats indicate those bolts were cleanly sheared.

Exactly where is the evidence to show us sheared off bolts? I do not want to read about. I want to see certified evidence of in b&w or living color.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Pilgrim,

See my post here which gives a link to the relevant GSPS spectrographic analysis of the WTC dust, where the samples were taken, and a table of the elements ID'd in the particulate and their concentrations.

Note also that it is they who ID glass, building furnishings and components, concrete, computers, piping, etc. as the sources of the elements found in the dust.

Edit to add: Re: your earlier post that you didn't see anything curious in the collapses, this gov't study should certainly send alarm bells off.


[edit on 25-1-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by OrionStars
Exactly where is the evidence to show us sheared off bolts? I do not want to read about. I want to see certified evidence of in b&w or living color.

Wouldn't you be worried I had CGI'd it then?
Let's turn the tables here and you find me evidence of truss seats with the bolts still in them so you can trust the evidence.

It's a simple process of deduction.
The truss seats no longer have bolts in them after the collapse which indicates the trusses/seats were stronger than the bolts and they sheared off. Of course that doesn't rule out the possibility that someone undid them all prior to the collapse but isn't that a little far fetched?

Originally posted by philjwolf
reply to post by ANOK
[more it would be just the opposite.. the more wieght that accumalated as it fell the faster it would fall.. my 7 yr old told me that..

And where does your 7 year old say the extra weight came from? No weight accumulated as it fell that the building hadn't been designed to hold, and had been doing so since 1972.

Also if if was a case of floors dropping on floors, because for some reason the floors became unattached from the columns, then what caused the central columns to telescope straight down and what caused the outer columns to be ejected laterally with enough force to be embedded in other buildings? Why do we not see the central structure still standing after the floors 'pancake' (an hypothesis even NIST doesn't agree with btw).

So maybe you should ask your 7 year old to think about this a bit more...

Originally posted by ANOK

And where does your 7 year old say the extra weight came from? No weight accumulated as it fell that the building hadn't been designed to hold, and had been doing so since 1972.

Ever hear of momentum?

Because there's your answer.

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

Pilgrim,

See my post here which gives a link to the relevant GSPS spectrographic analysis of the WTC dust, where the samples were taken, and a table of the elements ID'd in the particulate and their concentrations.

I wish I had paid more attention to that chart when you first posted it. I am astounded at the ppm rate of iron, barium and strontium. Uranium as in DU nuclear WMD uranium?

www.osti.gov...

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Ever hear of momentum?

Weight and momentum are completely unrelated terms. Ever heard of moment of inertia?

This is not a one-liner.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by OrionStars
Exactly where is the evidence to show us sheared off bolts? I do not want to read about. I want to see certified evidence of in b&w or living color.

Wouldn't you be worried I had CGI'd it then?
Let's turn the tables here and you find me evidence of truss seats with the bolts still in them so you can trust the evidence.

Let us not. You made the declarative statement. Own up to it with validation, or retract it with - "I read in the official report in "Popular Mechanics" Thomas Eagar said the bolts sheared off........"

If people keep contending the perimeter wall truss bolts, at least 2" in diameter each, were sheared off and dropped any trusses, they are telling us they have not a clue in which direction those bolts were inserted at the perimeter walls.

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Ever hear of momentum? Because there's your answer.

No that's not the answer. You can't take one physical reaction and hope it explains the lack of other physical reactions that should have occurred. Momentum alone won't overcome friction. There is not enough energy in a gravity fed collapse for the buildings to completely collapse themselves, eject themselves, and turn themselves into fine dust without encountering friction and resistance. The speed of all 3 collapses proves there was no resistance. Something had to take away that resistance. This is simple high school physics.

Maybe you and the seven year old should study together...

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

Ever hear of momentum?

Because there's your answer.

I have heard of momentum. Momentum does not change the constant of the mass unless someone DEWs it. Then constant changes by natural redistribution of mass weight and location, flying both near and far and away in molecular disintegration/granulation.